Media

February 25, 2015

In the tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” a vain emperor is swindled by two men who claim they can make him a special suit of garments invisible to the stupid or incompetent. When he later parades around naked in public, no one wants to state the obvious for fear of appearing the only “stupid” person who can’t see what the “competent” presumably do. That is, until a little child cries out, “But he doesn't have anything on!”

Ex-NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s statement that Barack Obama was influenced by communists in his youth and doesn’t love his country isn’t nearly as fascinating as the reaction to it.

Usually when a person is labeled a “communist” or a “fascist,” it’s a pejorative applied to someone who, whether or not actually fitting the description, doesn’t apply the label to himself.

February 06, 2015

NBC newsman Brian Williams (shown) said that while covering the Iraq War in 2003, he’d come under fire. Now many are calling for him to be fired.

Because his story, which he has repeated more than once, is false.

Writes the Washington Post:

Williams said he was not aboard a helicopter that was hit by enemy fire and forced down — a story he retold as recently as last week during a televised tribute to a retired soldier during a New York Rangers hockey game.

On “NBC Nightly News” Wednesday evening, Williams read a 50-second statement apologizing for his characterization of the episode.

“After a groundfire incident in the desert during the Iraq war invasion, I made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago,” he said. “It did not take long to hear from some brave men and women in the air crews who were also in that desert. I want to apologize. I said I was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by [rocket-propelled grenade] fire. I was instead in a following aircraft.... This was a bungled attempt by me to thank one special veteran and, by extension, our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere, those who have served while I did not.”

Williams emphasized his claim that his story was a mere error, saying in his statement, “I would not have chosen to make this mistake.” Yet many believe this strains credulity, especially since his aircraft was “following” perhaps 100 miles behind those that took the fire...

January 20, 2015

Never in the field of human conflict have so many cowered so much before so few. That’s just what Winston Churchill might say were he around today observing the political correctness that reigns in his and other Western nations’ media. And a prime example occurred this past Wednesday when a British news outlet suddenly and, some would say, comically cut the video feed (shown below) of a journalist complaining about the media’s refusal to show the recent Charlie Hebdo cover. And why?

January 15, 2015

Media bias often leads to the thoughtless hurling of names, but reporters can’t help but exhibit a negative bias when they don’t know what the names mean in the first place. A good example is the reportage on Europe’s burgeoning anti-Islamization movements, such as the German-born Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA) and Marine Le Pen’s National Front Party in France. And a good example of this good example is a Reuters article by one Jacob Heilbrunn entitled “Charlie Hebdo fallout: Specter of fascist past haunts European nationalism.” And what haunts all of us is the decline in Western education.

We can start with Heilbrunn’s description of Le Pen’s agenda, in which he says she “espouses an authoritarian program that calls for a moratorium on immigration, a restoration of the death penalty and a 'French first' policy on welfare benefits and employment.” Authoritarian? Given the term’s definition, “favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom,” do the aforementioned policy changes qualify? Heilbrunn seems to be defining authoritarian as “contrary to the leftist agenda.”

January 13, 2015

It’s so often the case that the best thing a person can do to improve his reputation is die. John F. Kennedy is now a legendary president, but would he be estimated so highly if he’d been able to end his political career as a man and not a myth? Ah, the power of martyrdom.

And so it is with the editors and cartoonists of French magazine Charlie Hebdo (CH). In the wake of the Jan. 7 attack on its offices, millions are showing their support, heroicizing CH and saying “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie). On the other hand, there are a few lonely voices, such as Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who have some less than flattering things to say about the magazine. After unequivocally condemning the killings, Donohue called CH’s late publisher, Stephane Charbonnier, “narcissistic” and said that the journalist “didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death.”

While I usually agree with Donohue, I do part company with him here — somewhat. First, the tone of his statement is a bit too deferential toward Islamic sensitivities. Second, I’m not so sure Donohue himself truly understands the role Charbonnier played in his tragic death. As to this, make no mistake:

December 23, 2014

“They have blood on their hands,” said former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik, of Mayor Bill de Blasio, Al Sharpton and “all those who encouraged this anti-cop, racist mentality.” He was, of course, commenting on the heinous assassinations of the two NYPD officers this weekend. “All those who encouraged,” by the way, would include Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Virtually all the mainstream media.

And most of academia.

Liberals lied and people died.

Leftist Lies — killing people for 225 years (I’m starting with the French Revolution).

Of course, liberals now are doing damage control after their damage inducement. Al Sharpton, the race-baiting, rabble-rousing reprobate, was given space by New York’s Daily News to claim he was “outraged and saddened by the deaths of these police officers” and that at “every rally and every march” he has “stressed nonviolence and peaceful protests.”

We noticed that on his “Million Marchers” day (Dec. 13) when “protesters” in NYC chanted “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”

We noticed it also when, in the Washington, D.C. march Sharpie Sharpton led himself, his followers repeatedly uttered the word “peace” — within the context of the chant “No justice, no peace!”

And we noticed it when Sharpton called the owner of Freddy’s Fashion Mart a “white interloper” and incited the 1995 massacre there during which seven innocents died.

Then we had NAACP President Cornell William Brooks on CBS's "Face the Nation" saying it was “unfair” to link the NYC killings, by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, to Obama, Holder and Bolshevik Bill de Blasio.

Except that Brinsley made clear via his Instagram account that his deadly plan was “retribution” for the Michael Brown and Eric Garner deaths.

December 13, 2014

“History is a series of agreed-upon myths,” Napoleon Bonaparte observed cynically. Now some critics are saying that, today, current events are also a series of agreed-upon myths.

“No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims.” This was opined by a more contemporary figure, being the recent title of a Washington Post piece by one Zerlina Maxwell. “Jackie” refers to the alleged victim at the center of the Rolling Stone rape “story,” related in an article so deserving of those quotation marks that, two weeks after publication, an even bigger story was made when the magazine issued a complete and unequivocal retraction, accompanied by a mea culpa and an apology to those the story hurt (The New American reported on this Tuesday).

December 02, 2014

Mocking critics have long said the CNN acronym stands for “Communist News Network.” Now they may feel vindicated. In a shocking display of reportage that many observers would characterize as journalistic fraud, the network has been whitewashing Ferguson protester violence. In fact, one New York Post writer minces no words when describing CNN’s “coverage” of the Missouri riots: Its reporters are simply “lying when they say Ferguson protests were ‘peaceful,’” she says.

Naomi Schaefer Riley opens her Post article writing, “Here’s a quiz for you folks in the media: What happens if you’re out doing ‘man on the street’ interviews but none of the men on the street fits your ‘narrative’?

If you’re CNN, you stop interviewing them.”

“Narrative,” by the way, has become a popular word the last several years. It means “story.” And you’ll hear things such as “That’s the narrative the party is trying to advance” or “His claim just doesn’t fit the narrative.” In CNN’s case, says Riley, the truth doesn’t fit its narrative.

November 21, 2014

While Britain already has hate-speech laws that stifle criticism of Islam, this isn’t enough for the political director of the Huffington Post UK, Mehdi Hasan. Speaking at a London media industry event hosted by Mindshare UK last Thursday, the columnist complained of what he called “demonizing press coverage” of Muslims and said it will not “change unless … there is some penalty.” He entertained the idea of “externally imposed” regulation as a possible remedy and also called for efforts to increase “diversity” in newsrooms.

The columnist … said the press has proven “singularly unable or unwilling to change the discourse, the tone or the approach” towards Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers.

Hasan … said: “We’re not going to get change unless there is some sanction, there is some penalty. This is not just about Muslims; it is about all minorities.”

“Therefore you have to ask questions about: does it need to be externally imposed, either by better regulation or via some form of commercial imperative? Though, that requires a separate campaign to get companies to give a damn about this stuff,” Hasan added.

Hasan characterized much Islam coverage as “misinformation” and said it was “morally wrong.”

October 21, 2014

“It’s so unhinged we should probably not bother dignifying it with fact-checking.” So said CNN’s Jake Tapper, reporting on comments radio giant Michael Savage made about the Ebola crisis. But if Tapper had done some fact-checking, fewer people would now believe as fact that he checked his credibility at the newsroom door.

On a Tuesday CNN segment titled “Dangers of Ebola: Myths and misconceptions,” Tapper claimed that Savage was broadcasting “wild conspiracy theories,” accusing the host of alleging that Barack Obama was purposely trying to spread the disease among Americans.

“[C]onservative talk-radio host Michael Savage, who has one of the biggest radio audiences in the country, has even been suggesting that this is all some Obama plot to purposely infect the nation,” said Tapper. He then played audio of the host saying on the Savage Nation radio program, “There’s not a sane reason to take 4,000 troops and send them into a hot Ebola zone without expecting at least one of them to come back with Ebola, unless you want to infect the nation with Ebola.” This is when the newsman concluded with, “It’s hard to even know where to start with that one, the idea that the president wants to infect soldiers and then Americans? It’s so unhinged, we should probably not bother dignifying it with fact-checking.”